Society Baby

Do you think the motto of the Royal Society is a good one?

Roughly translated, the motto of the Royal Society, one of the oldest and most prestigious bodes for the dissemination of science is "On the word of no one" Sound basis for science or paranoid scepticism? .

Public Comments

1. Sound. What they mean is something I've said here MANY times. Rhetoric is not science, DATA is. The thing about the global warming scientists is not their numbers (which are an effect, not a cause) or their prestige (another effect). It's the mountain of data that stands behind them, confirming their work. It cross checks things independently. We KNOW the temperature measurements are not "faked" because independent scientists have brought in DATA on earlier Springs, Arctic ice melting, sea levels rising, species migrations, and more. We KNOW that, rhetoric to the contrary, global warming is NOT caused by the Sun, because independent scientists have brought in DATA on solar radiation, the temperature profile in the atmosphere (we're warming from the bottom up, not the top down), temperature measurements on other planets (most are not warming), and more. Global warming science rests, not on opinions, but on data. The idea of a classic debate on global warming, with guys standing behind lecterns, making rhetorical arguments, is really silly. The debate is fought, as it should be, in the scientific literature, and the person with the most convincing DATA (not the most convincing rhetoric) wins. And, because that's the way science works, the vast majority of scientists stand behind global warming science. The consensus is not the proof, the data is. But without the data, there is no consensus.
2. There are quite a few pro-warmer scientists who could benefit by following their motto. "The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba', roughly translated as 'Take nobody's word for it', dates back to 1663, and is an expression of the determination of the Fellows to withstand the domination of authority (such as in Scholasticism) and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment. The Latin words (see below) are taken from a passage of Horace in which the poet compares himself to a gladiator, who, having earned peace and retirement, is free from control." http://royalsociety.org/Nullius-in-verba/
3. You are trying to argue that people should not accept the word of authorities. And to make that argument you invoke the word of an authority organization!!!!!!!!!!!
4. I have to agree with Bob this time in that it is an excellent motto for the Royal Society. As he put it: "Rhetoric is not science, DATA is." He provides us with an excellent example of how to apply the principle: "faked" temperatures. So here is the data: The hockey stick graph scandal that figured prominently in the 2001 IPCC report: http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey2.gif Compare that to the graph of the same thing included in the IPCC 1990 report before the data fudging began: http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/MWE-LIA.gif along with their conclusions from it: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/ Here is the review: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf Here is what the 2007 IPCC report said: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html Here is the history of Greenland agriculture for the disappeared Mid Evil Warm Period: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html Now for the graph of recent temperatures generated by the NOAA whose data has been discredited: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif And the satellite data for the same temperatures over the same period: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-LT-13-and-25-month-filtering.jpg And just one reason why the data from NOAA is suspect (aside from its failure to match the satellite data): http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf Notice how AGW seems to go away when you look at the reliable data. It shows no worldwide trend of sea ice loss, only when restricted to the Arctic does there appear to be such a trend. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg Sea levels have risen recently, but spectacularly, and may even be leveling off. There is no need for me to argue some phony consensus, the data speaks for itself.